| Author |
Topic |
Wrayeth
EdgeGamers
Situation: Normal |
Posted - 2010.05.23 16:54:00 - [ 61]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 23/05/2010 16:55:25
I'm not going to get into the whole question of what would happen to the entire world if the U.S. went isolationist. I will, however, mention what I think will happen in Afghanistan.
If the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan abruptly at this time, I expect that there would be chaos and atrocities committed far beyond the level of what is occurring now. The country simply doesn't have enough forces to protect/police itself yet, and if the U.S. pulls out the entire thing will crumble extremely fast. Like it or not, the U.S. created this situation, so we've got a moral responsibility to stick around until the Afghans can protect themselves.
Unfortunately, I don't see this happening very soon. First and foremost, the Afghans need to train more soldiers and police; this, however will take time that Afghanistan won't have if we pull out right now. Secondly, Afghanistan's pool of willing recruits is rather small with the threat Taliban reprisals against those who do step up to help their country, and also due to the resentment of the current government and their foreign allies stirred up during the period of neglect when the U.S. turned most its attention towards Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan. Thirdly, Afghanistan's economy is hardly robust or even adequate. It simply doesn't have the funds it needs to support the military and police required to keep the country stable at this time. Even after the U.S. does eventually pull out, we'll be sending funds to support the Afghan military for a long time.
In short, if the U.S. were to bail on Afghanistan right now...well, it would be ugly. |
Pr1ncess Alia |
Posted - 2010.05.23 16:58:00 - [ 62]
Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 23/05/2010 17:06:42 Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
a lot of doomsday stuff that may or may not occur
Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
given state of current global economy and international dependencies, most of it probably wouldn't
Normally I would agree with you, but when you consider *recent* events such as the Falklands War, the ethnic cleansing in Africa, South Africa's Mbeki who doesn't believe in AIDs, the Kosovo War, Serbian war crimes, Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, Iran's last election, Chavez, China's take over of Tibet, China using immigration to smother the native Tibetans and Tibetan culture out of existence, Russia's Putin, Russia's invasion of Georgia, the drug cartel takeover of the Mexican side of the US border, the Koreas, the Middle East, Pakistan's instability, plus whatever else I can't remember, it's obvious that there is plenty of Leadership from the first world to the third world that won't let the global economy and international dependencies restrict their actions.
Argh, now I have the urge to listen to Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire".
Your making my point. Look at all the crap in that billy joel song. Look at all the crap now. There is, always has been and always will be lots and lots of crap. And the world keeps on turning. Now think of how much crap where you can actually say "boy, if the US hadn't been there things really would have gone **** up".... as proud as I am of my country, not too much. Not in the last 50 years anyways. A little instability is to be expected. It is normal. Hell, a moderate amount of instability is normal. It's certainly not the end of the world and most of these actions are shortsighted and short lived pushes for power. Power shifts and things settle back down. Rule number 1 for any of these leaders, first all the way to third world is, if things get to crazy they may lose their power and none of them want that. This is why most things don't happen, people like to make noise and keep the populations scared of what may happen but usually nothing ever does. ....Not anywhere that matters anyway and I'm sorry but as far as most of africa and the middle east is concerned, most people in the first world just don't care. I'm not mean, it's just a fact. Another fact is that whether or not the US has troops in these areas they will constantly be engaged in local power struggles and civil wars. Originally by: Wrayeth
If the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan abruptly at this time, I expect that there would be chaos and atrocities committed far beyond the level of what is occurring now.
In short, if the U.S. were to bail on Afghanistan right now...well, it would be ugly.
probably, but unless we stay there forever there is a REAL good chance we can spend decades investing and building infrastructure and government and have it all disappear the second we turn our backs. one lesson we must learn is you can't make a country like you can make a cake. democracy stability and peace is something a society must be ready for and earn for itself. it's like respect, when given it's meaningless, it MUST be earned. Iran has areas of population that are most certainly ready to join the 21st century and have been trying very hard to overthrow ahkmaneedahandjob. they deserve and will earn their democracy (earn it back i should say) a vast majority of afghanistan isn't ready to join the 18th century. yes, crap would get worse as warlords vie for power, but it would settle down and go back to it's 3rd world not-much-happening ****hole status rather quick. edit: i'll grant you this. if we stay there long enough and invest enough to actually educate (reeducate? lol no. educate.) two or three consecutive generations of people, we can make afghanistan actually a functioning democracy and stable country. otherwise, it's nothing more than an elaborate crapshoot and political experiment |
stoicfaux
Gallente |
Posted - 2010.05.23 17:02:00 - [ 63]
Edited by: stoicfaux on 23/05/2010 17:03:28 Originally by: Suicida1
Second of all "kicking ass" of some random country for terrorist act is not "fighting for greater good", hence my comment that nothing will change if you just pull out. You arent doing any favor to anyone your just gettign your revenge. And what did you achieve in afganistan? Talliban is still there, drug production increased rapidly, what was the point?
Osama bin Laden was operating training bases in Afghanistan. The Taliban (friendly to Osama) and the Western Alliance (which was losing) were fighting for control of the country. After 9/11, the US provided air support to the Western Alliance which enabled them to win the war. Then the US and UN sent in troops to create a stable government that didn't rely on Warlords and/or Islamic fundamentalism. The US goal was to prevent Afghanistan from providing support to international terror group and to create a more friendly ally in the area. If the US/UN were to pull out of Afghanistan there is a good chance that the government would fall apart and Afghanistan would again fall in to civil war and/or have in-fighting between warlords, which would again make Afghanistan an attractive place for Islamic terror groups to call home and from which to strike out against the West. |
Suicida1 |
Posted - 2010.05.23 17:29:00 - [ 64]
Originally by: stoicfaux
Edited by: stoicfaux on 23/05/2010 17:03:28
Originally by: Suicida1
Second of all "kicking ass" of some random country for terrorist act is not "fighting for greater good", hence my comment that nothing will change if you just pull out. You arent doing any favor to anyone your just gettign your revenge. And what did you achieve in afganistan? Talliban is still there, drug production increased rapidly, what was the point?
Osama bin Laden was operating training bases in Afghanistan. The Taliban (friendly to Osama) and the Western Alliance (which was losing) were fighting for control of the country. After 9/11, the US provided air support to the Western Alliance which enabled them to win the war. Then the US and UN sent in troops to create a stable government that didn't rely on Warlords and/or Islamic fundamentalism. The US goal was to prevent Afghanistan from providing support to international terror group and to create a more friendly ally in the area.
If the US/UN were to pull out of Afghanistan there is a good chance that the government would fall apart and Afghanistan would again fall in to civil war and/or have in-fighting between warlords, which would again make Afghanistan an attractive place for Islamic terror groups to call home and from which to strike out against the West.
Yes, I understand your reasons. My point is that US direct military actions did not lead to a more stable world. If you by force remove training bases from Afghanistan they will appear in Pakistan, if you move on to Pakistan they will reaper in Afghanistan, Iraq or covertly in some part of Europe. You are fighting with phantom, instead of trying to learn why this phantom exists and to cure the disease at it’s root. Why there was 9/11? Why (fundamental) Muslims see western world as enemy? Why there are two new Taliban recruits for every one that is killed? These questions may not be answered with bombing strikes. Bombing strikes make everything worse than it was. |
digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 17:42:00 - [ 65]
Originally by: Zions Child
Globalization at its best. However, unchecked economic growth is as bad for a country as a recession. And China has been industrializing at a pace which no group could possibly keep up forever. This will cause significant issues in their economy if anyone even remotely thinks about pulling out of China's economic growth.
They've been growing at a 10 to 15% pace for the last 20+ years,with an overall population that now exceeds 1.6 billion people....That's not much below 1/4 of the worlds entire population and a massive market potential. Quote:
The wages in China are actually going up, to a point where the only reason why companies continue to base manufacturing out of China is because everything is already set up there. As soon as wages hit that magic number that makes production in America and other first world countries reasonable again, you'll see them move back here. Hell, the Japanese auto manufacturers already have. Suzuki, Toyota, Honda, all of them are building plants in the U.S.
Does the average US worker in an assembly line work for the equivalent of 5~10$ a day,or pull 70 hour workweeks?....That's what happends in many manufacturing companies in china,so it'll likely improve over time,you're right about that,but that day isn't coming anytime soon. Quote:
You aren't seriously attempting to compare the military technology of these two countries, are you? T-55's and T-96's versus M1A2 Abrams, with depleted uranium, HEAT, and Sabot rounds on the M1A2 for starters. Clear winner in that battle.
Yes, China's standing military might be over 2.4 million, with a fairly large potential increase, and the American military might be currently spread thin, but our technology is so incredibly superior its frightening.
Their navy is loltastic. The American Navy is larger than the next seventeen navies combined. And China is way down that list.
And then theres the real power that countries flex to destroy each other, and that is air superiority. Heard of the F-22 Raptor? Want to know why they stopped building them? Because there was no other country deemed a threat that had built a 4G fighter, much less a 5G fighter. Its so advanced, its almost impossible for it to be shot down by any fighter except itself. The B-2's speak for themselves.
In other words, the American Air Force can pretty much choose just about any country in the world, and bomb it back to the stone age without fear of retaliation.
Then theres the nukes. Everyone loves to talk about nukes. China has a grand total of 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles, none of which can reach a place further than the west coast. Not to mention that although we don't reveal most of our anti-missile defense technologies, the ones we know about are more than enough to prevent the majority of said missiles from detonating. I'm fairly certain you know how many American ICBM's there are, so I won't bore you.
Here's the best link for military information period,but you need to be registered to access said information,which they have dozens of different categories: http://www.janes.com/Suffice to say that China,in 2008 alone,spent 250 billion modernizing they war assets,and according to Jane's,have as many suface vessels as the US right now,and i'm talking the latest soviet designs here,not stuff built in the 1960's or 1970's anymore. As for the F22,there's will only be 187 of those planes in service,out of the 4000+ combat planes the US has for home defence,and the F22 has been locked in the past by an american F16C and an F18 super hornet EG variant. The F35 is turing out to be a running gag since it was supposed to enter service to replace the F18's in 2006...Now the earliest estimations is somewhere around 2015. Oh and in a eurofighter typhoon meet in 2007,8 of those blew up to 27 US F15's/F16's and F18's in combat exercises,repeatedly i might add. |
digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 18:08:00 - [ 66]
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 23/05/2010 18:12:27Wiki's link on the eurofighter typhoon,of which there are about 1000 planes in service across 4 air forces,and even saudi arbia is buying 80 of them too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon Quote:
In 2004, prior to the F-22 Raptor entering service, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter:
I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter.[107][108]
The Typhoon's combat performance, compared to the new F-22 Raptor and the upcoming F-35 Lightning II[109] fighters and the French Dassault Rafale, has been the subject of much discussion. In March 2005, Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said,
The Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula One car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance.[110]
Further, "The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high g forces), very impressive", he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. — all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."[110][111]
Quote:
The Eurofighter consortium claims their fighter has a larger sustained subsonic turn rate, sustained supersonic turn rate, and faster acceleration at Mach 0.9 at 20,000 feet (6,100 m) than the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet, Dassault Mirage 2000, Dassault Rafale, the Sukhoi Su-27, and the Mikoyan MiG-29.[121][122][123]
In 2005, a trainer Eurofighter T1 was reported to have had a chance encounter the previous year with two U.S. Air Force F-15Es over the Lake District in the north of England. The encounter became a mock dogfight with the Eurofighter allegedly emerging victorious.[124][125][verification needed]
In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, the Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests.[126][127][verification needed] Singapore still went on to buy the F-15 due to uncertainty over Typhoon tranche 2 delivery dates.
During the exercise "Typhoon Meet" held in 2008, Eurofighters flew against F/A-18 Hornets, Mirage F1s, Harriers and F-16s in a mock combat exercise. It is claimed that the Eurofighters won all engagements (even outnumbered 8 vs 27) without suffering losses.[128][129]
The aviation magazine "Flug Revue" reports that in 2008 German Typhoon were pitted against French Rafales. The results are said to be "extremely gratifying", the main difference being the "much greater thrust of the EJ200 engine".[130]
In July 2009, Former Chief of Air Staff for the Royal Air Force Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy said that "The Eurofighter Typhoon is an excellent aircraft. It will be the backbone of the Royal Air Force along with the JSF".[131]
Eurofighter is making quite a reputation for itself,as the only plane is hasn't met yet would be the F22 raptor,which constitutes a miniscule part of the USA's total air force power....All the rest of the US planes were beaten by the eurofighters,and in some encounters,with the hostiles having higher numbers of planes. So i think that europe could defend itself quite nicely thanks. |
caka ringrawer |
Posted - 2010.05.23 18:27:00 - [ 67]
nice debating guys! |
Pr1ncess Alia |
Posted - 2010.05.23 18:34:00 - [ 68]
Originally by: digitalwanderer
So i think that europe could defend itself quite nicely thanks.
yes it is a badarse jet however all those quotes seem to elude to it being much better than it is. while it can hold it's own against similar generation craft, I would in no way agree that the typhoon is simply a better craft than many of those listed in any type of engagement the mock encounters with trainer craft don't give us any real material to deal with. payloads are very very different... pilot ability is also huge. really, like the quote says, the plane itself is very different from anything listed in any of those quotes (barring maybe the f35?) there just isn't any way i can see someone saying the eurofighter is hands down better than so many of those craft listed. example: given 2 pilots of similar ability i can't say how an f15 v the eurofighter is a hands down win for the eurofighter. there isn't any evidence out there to support that claim despite the fact many people would consider them a generation apart. |
stoicfaux
Gallente |
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:11:00 - [ 69]
Edited by: stoicfaux on 23/05/2010 19:12:54 Originally by: Suicida1
Yes, I understand your reasons. My point is that US direct military actions did not lead to a more stable world. If you by force remove training bases from Afghanistan they will appear in Pakistan, if you move on to Pakistan they will reaper in Afghanistan, Iraq or covertly in some part of Europe. You are fighting with phantom, instead of trying to learn why this phantom exists and to cure the disease at it’s root.
If the US had left Osama alone, he would have made more attacks. More successful attacks means more popularity and more volunteers and broader support. Not responding quickly would have been a bad idea, as seen by the first World Trade Center bombing in New York. The US shrugged it off as a one-off event, and then, *bam* the US gets hit with 9/11. Denying Osama a safe base of operations did work. Yes, the training bases moved to Pakistan, but guess what? Pakistan realized that having a highly organized bunch of terrorist fanatics as house guests who also turned out to be anti-government was a bad idea and now they're doing something about it. There's also a lot of US-Pakistani diplomacy happening behind the scenes too, so it's not like the US considers military force as option #1. The US isn't all about military might, it's just that military might is more visible and more exciting than say back room diplomacy, years long talks, economic policies, and slow negotiation. As for phantoms, I think Cockroaches are a better term. Cockroaches don't like the light, which is why most countries aren't too keen on hosting "phantoms" due to repercussions from the rest of the world and the internal instability these phantoms create. A successful terrorist group would be glad to take over the host country and most governments realize this. If a terrorist group is having trouble with worldwide operations, then one option they have is to try to take over their host country. A terrorist group that can't function internationally or locally isn't going to have very many members. So it's in the terrorists groups' best interests to attack someone/anyone or else they have to go out and get real jobs. Quote:
Why there was 9/11? Why (fundamental) Muslims see western world as enemy? Why there are two new Taliban recruits for every one that is killed? These questions may not be answered with bombing strikes. Bombing strikes make everything worse than it was.
Part of it is the just stellar diplomacy practiced by the US in the Middle East in the past. Propping up the Iranian Shah, playing off Iraq/S. ******* against Iran, and the support of Israel being the big examples. Another part is economics. Who benefits the most from the selling of oil? The Arab people or the Arab governments? (Where governments are monarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships, with precious few democracies.) Do you really think anyone would care about the Great Satan if the local economy was good, people had jobs, and their children had a bright future to look forward to? A final factor is plain old politics, specifically the old "Us versus Them" strategy. It's really easy to rabble rouse by blaming your internal problems on a common enemy. "Look over there! The West is stealing our future! Don't look at the government behind the curtain as it robs the country blind!" Heck, the US saw a lot of the "Us v. Them" crap with the last election. "Oh no! Our great country is now under a liberal dictatorship!" (Never mind that the "dictators" were elected by a majority after the previous conservative government botched things up pretty badly.) One thing I've learned is that there is no single simple cause/answer/solution, and that no issue is black & white. |
digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:11:00 - [ 70]
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 23/05/2010 19:19:57Edited by: digitalwanderer on 23/05/2010 19:16:38 Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
Originally by: digitalwanderer
So i think that europe could defend itself quite nicely thanks.
yes it is a badarse jet
however all those quotes seem to elude to it being much better than it is. while it can hold it's own against similar generation craft, I would in no way agree that the typhoon is simply a better craft than many of those listed in any type of engagement
the mock encounters with trainer craft don't give us any real material to deal with.
payloads are very very different... pilot ability is also huge. really, like the quote says, the plane itself is very different from anything listed in any of those quotes (barring maybe the f35?)
there just isn't any way i can see someone saying the eurofighter is hands down better than so many of those craft listed.
example: given 2 pilots of similar ability i can't say how an f15 v the eurofighter is a hands down win for the eurofighter. there isn't any evidence out there to support that claim despite the fact many people would consider them a generation apart.
Well,there was that US air force general's statement,and he's flown all current US planes,and still stated that the eurofighter was simply better overall. The one thing to keep in mind is that most of the US fighter planes were designed in the 1970's or early 1980's(F15/F16/F18),and i'm fully aware that refits for those planes,happen on a routine basis to keep them up to date in terms of engines,avionics,weapons systems,better radars,but the eurofighter maiden flight happended only in 2000,with the plane entering service in 2003,so there's a good 20 years difference in terms of the design of the airframe alone,not to mention the avionics package and other aspects,relative to the F15's,F16's and F18's. As it is,the US isn't flying the latest variants of the F16's for instance,which are block 30's,while saudi arabia and israel are flying the latest block 60 designs with conformal fuel tanks,an AESA radar,better avionics,and an engine that delivers 5000 LBS more thrust than the versions used in the US airforce(block 30's remember?). The eurofighter for instance has a helmet mounted HUD that allows the pilot to follow a specific target,acheive lock and assign a missile to that target,using only his eyes,without even having to move his hand away from the flight stick at all,which only the very latest generation super hornets have just barely started using that,the F22's were never built with that capability in mind(it is being developed though),and only the F35's will have that feature within it's design from the start,but they're not in service yet(5 years out). And to counter the stealth advantage that the F22 or the F35 have,eurofighters are designed to handle the pirate detection system,which is an infrared/microwave detector mounted on the left side of the canopy,and detects heat signatures from the engines of hostile planes,or at the very least,the heat produced from the engine of the missile once it's been fired from an F22,assuming the eurofighter's own radar still can't see the F22....It seems that pirate can detect heat signatures as far as 60 miles away. So the eurofighter isn't a stealth plane,so it doesn't qualify as a 5th generation combat plane,but make no mistake,the onboard avionics and sensor systems are state of the art,and it can super cruise just like the F22 can,and was built to be super agile in close combat,in part due to it's small size and 1/2 the weight of the F22,which that US general clearly mentioned it's close combat performance,hence the 4.5 generation designation given to it... |
Pr1ncess Alia |
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:18:00 - [ 71]
Originally by: digitalwanderer
lots of cool stuff. much i knew and some i didn't
well i'll stand corrected then.  i still have a feeling an american f15 pilot can take one provided he smokes the right cigars and has enough 5 o'clock shadow  |
digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:25:00 - [ 72]
|
Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:29:00 - [ 73]
Edited by: Zions Child on 23/05/2010 19:43:28
Yes, the Eurofighter is quite good. Last time I checked, however, China isn't building or using any. And the reason why the F-22 production has been put on hold is because the Air Force saw no reason to build them, as nothing matches them. Not a single F-22 has been lost in actual combat situations, and the amount of 4G fighters lost in combat situations has been hilariously small.
And China's navy is minuscule compared to the US's. If they were able to modernize their entire navy using only $250 billion per year, when we spend around a trillion a year, I'll eat my own fist. No country can remotely match the full pointed power of the American military. The reason why we do poorly in "police" exercises, is because we don't use the brunt of our forces. With full authorization to use any means necessary to stop someone, we could roll over just about any country within a few months. The principle problem besides not having said authorization is that it would take around 6 months to a year to pull back all our our forces and consolidate them, in which time a concerted effort by someone could leave us in a long stalemate.
Edit: China currently has 3 carriers in planning. Note that the US has 3 super carriers in planning, and that we have 11 active super carriers. Also, we have over 280 currently active principal combat vessels, as in, that excludes shore defense.
Our submarines are considerably more advanced, our destroyers and frigates are not quite as modern, but are more than sufficient. We also have cruisers, 22 of them, which the Chinese are not even planning to build. The Tomahawk cruise missile, which has an incredible range and power, is particularly prominent in the US navy.
Our Air Force superiority over theirs is so staggering as to be unbelievable.
Mind you, many of DARPA's projects are reaching fruition soon, producing usable and incredible results. |
digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:49:00 - [ 74]
Originally by: Zions Child
Yes, the Eurofighter is quite good. Last time I checked, however, China isn't building or using any. And the reason why the F-22 production has been put on hold is because the Air Force saw no reason to build them, as nothing matches them. Not a single F-22 has been lost in actual combat situations, and the amount of 4G fighters lost in combat situations has been hilariously small.
And China's navy is minuscule compared to the US's. If they were able to modernize their entire navy using only $250 billion, when we spend around a trillion a year, I'll eat my own fist. No country can remotely match the full pointed power of the American military. The reason why we do poorly in "police" exercises, is because we don't use the brunt of our forces. With full authorization to use any means necessary to stop someone, we could roll over just about any country within a few months. The principle problem besides not having said authorization is that it would take around 6 months to a year to pull back all our our forces and consolidate them, in which time a concerted effort by someone could leave us in a long stalemate.
Remember,i said 250 billion only in 2008,not in previous years or what they spent in 2009....That's the first issue. The second issue is the population numbers alone are staggering,with 1.6 billion people living in china,and the fact that China still has a mandatory draft for military service....Think about that for a while. Even if only 1/4 of that entire population is fit enough to due their military service,and being called back if a war broke out between the US and china,you're already exceeding the entire population of the USA,including every child or person already in their old age and retired,so too young or old to serve anyhow...lol. Massively outnumbered anyone....I think so..  As for the F22,well there's this,which the russians finally had their first test flight,and it's a given that China will buy those planes...PAK-FA 50: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxWZiSdWvnsIt's likely that it'll only be ready for deployment in russia,and eventual export sales,in a few years time,once all the onboard systems are fully developed and tested,but i'm sure that eventuality is already on US military planners minds right now,and the F22 was canned for it's extremely high price,coming in a 350 million a pop if only building 187 of them in total. It would have been cheaper if more were built so the individual cost for each plane drops,but given the ****ty state of the US economy right now,with huge deficits and an overall national debt over 13 trillion dollars,it's just not an option,period. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:50:00 - [ 75]
Originally by: Zions Child
Mind you, many of DARPA's projects are reaching fruition soon, producing usable and incredible results.
It's starting to become "a Tony Stark world" out there however  |
stoicfaux
Gallente |
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:51:00 - [ 76]
Originally by: digitalwanderer
The eurofighter for instance has a helmet mounted HUD that allows the pilot to follow a specific target,acheive lock and assign a missile to that target,using only his eyes,without even having to move his hand away from the flight stick at all,which only the very latest generation super hornets have just barely started using that,the F22's were never built with that capability in mind(it is being developed though),and only the F35's will have that feature within it's design from the start,but they're not in service yet(5 years out).
Argh, enough about single weapons! It's all about integration and systems! Sure the typhoon sounds like a great plane to fly and fight in, but if an AWACs is directing F-22s at the typhoon squadron, who do you think is going to shoot first? What good is a typhoon against a mass of tomahawk missiles? Will a typhoon protect your merchant shipping against submarines? The US military is big on training and integrated systems. Shiny toys are great, but training plus coordination plus shiny toys makes even the Orgasmatron look like ASCII **** printed in a proportional font! Projection of Force and an Absent USThen there's the whole projection of force issue. Shiny toys are great, but if you can't get them to the trouble spots, they're useless. This is one reason why the US has such a large navy and a decent sized air transport fleet. Even then it can take weeks to months to get enough forces in place to be decisive. (It's also why we try to keep military bases overseas.) If the US were to pull up and go home, no one else would be able to project force quickly and effectively enough to prevent regional hot spots from flaring up. Who could stop China from providing intense encouragement for Taiwan to return back home? If not the US, then who could have stopped Iraq from rolling into Saudi Arabia after Kuwait? If the US is gone, then the "world police" are gone, and every Great Leader, both mighty and small, that has any predilection towards expansionism is going to take the opportunity to flex their Greatness(tm). |
So Sensational
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 19:57:00 - [ 77]
Edited by: So Sensational on 23/05/2010 20:08:25 Originally by: digitalwanderer
The second issue is the population numbers alone are staggering,with 1.6 billion people living in china,and the fact that China still has a mandatory draft for military service....Think about that for a while.
Even if only 1/4 of that entire population is fit enough to due their military service,and being called back if a war broke out between the US and china,you're already exceeding the entire population of the USA,including every child or person already in their old age and retired,so too young or old to serve anyhow...lol.
Massively outnumbered anyone....I think so..
Quality > Quantity. What are they going to do? Build rafts and float over and then charge Soviet style? If anything a massive military like that would be a disadvantage against a technologically superior foe. More people to feed and pay that don't really contribute to your victory. I doubt the army would be used on a large scale between two superpowers separated by an ocean unless one side seeks to occupy the other. Even if the ambition existed neither China nor the US could succeed in doing so against each other if the population of the other country didn't want it. You can send the entire US army in there, they'd still lose against 1.6 billion Chinese with chop sticks. P.s. If the US pulled out of everything Erik Prince would get rich. |
digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 20:01:00 - [ 78]
Originally by: Zions Child
Edited by: Zions Child on 23/05/2010 19:43:28
Edit: China currently has 3 carriers in planning. Note that the US has 3 super carriers in planning, and that we have 11 active super carriers. Also, we have over 280 currently active principal combat vessels, as in, that excludes shore defense.
The original enterprise nuclear carrier is going into retirement in 2 years after being in service for nearly 50 years,and then we have the 10 nimitz class carriers,the latest being the George W bush(the father,not his idiot son). Following those,then it's a new class of carriers,the gerald R ford class,which the primary intent of those is to be cheaper to run,as they require less staff than the nimitz class,which have a total crew complement of about 5600 aboard....The ford class removes the steam catapults used for far in carriers and goes for Electromagnetic lauchers,which need less maintenance and can launch planes faster,as steam pressure doesn't need to be built up before the actual plane is launched. Quote:
Our submarines are considerably more advanced, our destroyers and frigates are not quite as modern, but are more than sufficient. We also have cruisers, 22 of them, which the Chinese are not even planning to build. The Tomahawk cruise missile, which has an incredible range and power, is particularly prominent in the US navy.
Most of the US submarines are either the ohio class(nuclear missile carrying) or the los angeles class subs,both of which were first designed in the 1970's and 1980's...The true next generation subs to replace the los angeles attack submarines were the sea wolf class,but only 3 were ever built,as their 4 billion price tag to be way better than the los angeles class is a bit too steep. |
Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 20:17:00 - [ 79]
Nuclear weapons have been a Damocles sword over the world. The military calculus with them is very simple 'do this and you can destroy the world'. So far they have very probably prevented WW3 between the old USSR and NATO. But the other side is if terrorists get hold of even one and detonate it in a western city the resulting thirst for revenge of a retaliatory nuclear strike could start a war which could drag lots of countries into it.
USA as a 'democracy' is limited in using imperial brute force without a moral agenda the public approve of. And that is very necessary balance. Decades ago some people like General McArthur still had some old fashioned ideas of how to do stuff. Like using nuclear weapons tactically. Which is stupid.
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 20:18:00 - [ 80]
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 23/05/2010 20:27:15Edited by: digitalwanderer on 23/05/2010 20:24:30Edited by: digitalwanderer on 23/05/2010 20:20:47 Originally by: stoicfaux
Argh, enough about single weapons! It's all about integration and systems! Sure the typhoon sounds like a great plane to fly and fight in, but if an AWACs is directing F-22s at the typhoon squadron, who do you think is going to shoot first? What good is a typhoon against a mass of tomahawk missiles? Will a typhoon protect your merchant shipping against submarines? The US military is big on training and integrated systems. Shiny toys are great, but training plus coordination plus shiny toys makes even the Orgasmatron look like ASCII **** printed in a proportional font!
There will only be 187 F22's....Initially,when the contract was made in the early 90's,it was for over 800 F22's,which their role was to replace the F15's as the air superiority fighter of the US airforce....Here we are almost 20 years later,and it's still the F15 as the primary air superiority fighter,so it's gettig old in the tooth to say the least,technology wise. Quote:
Projection of Force and an Absent US
Then there's the whole projection of force issue. Shiny toys are great, but if you can't get them to the trouble spots, they're useless. This is one reason why the US has such a large navy and a decent sized air transport fleet. Even then it can take weeks to months to get enough forces in place to be decisive. (It's also why we try to keep military bases overseas.)
China's not interested in power projection...They're interested in defending their country and the immediate surrouding areas,so the need for carriers is pretty debatable in those circumstances,and they got more than enough people and military assets to do just that,to the point,as i mentioned earlier,that the US talks very softly to china,even though it's not a democracy,human rights violations happen routinely and it's a communist country,but it has a market economy,so it's all cool....Market economy and true democracy should never be considered one and the same. The same reasons the US has started wars in the past against smaller countries(Corea,vietnam). Quote:
If the US were to pull up and go home, no one else would be able to project force quickly and effectively enough to prevent regional hot spots from flaring up. Who could stop China from providing intense encouragement for Taiwan to return back home? If not the US, then who could have stopped Iraq from rolling into Saudi Arabia after Kuwait?
The only reason the US did that is because the entire region is sitting a lot oil,and if these countries didn't that that,the US response wouldn't have been quite so dramatic,as theirs plenty of other under developed countries that are poor and could use the US help,but they don't nearly the same attention as did Kuweit or iraq,and now iran,which surprise,also has a lot of oil. USA's foreign policy is pretty predictable basically....You get the most help if you have something we also want.....Knights in shining armour?,hardly. |
Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2010.05.23 20:27:00 - [ 81]
Originally by: stoicfaux
Edited by: stoicfaux on 23/05/2010 03:16:56
* Taiwan would return back to China.
* Japan would have to scramble to re-militarize itself before China finished with Taiwan.
* Afghanistan would probably fall back to feuding warlords or fall to the Taliban.
* Pakistan taliban/insurgents would probably destabilize Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes, so either terrorists would get nukes or India and Pakistan would nuke each other as India steps in to prevent the destabilization of Pakistan.
* India has a billion people and would probably jump on the chance to increase their military and exert regional influence.
* Indo-china is going to light up in a tug of war between India, China, Japan, maybe Russia, and maybe even Australia.
* The Middle East Arab states would probably make another try to wipe Israel off the map.
* Israel might do something extremely preemptive when it longer has to worry about appeasing Washington.
* The EU (especially the French and Germans) would pump up their military to compensate for the loss of NATO.
* Russia might actually try to subjugate some of the former soviet republics. At the very least Russia would seek to expand/exert its global diplomacy and increase its arms sales.
* Russia and China might make snarling noises at each other, but I don't think there would be any direct confrontation.
* Australia might wig out in fear of China expanding its influence down to New Zealand.
* No idea if Australia's current government is reactionary/conservative enough to pull a Falklands or Mussolini and try to do some (incompetent) empire expansion.
* The UK would freak out and either really join the EU, or fire up a military-industrial complex and try to rebuild their navy and nukes to exert influence.
* Central and South America would have a few wars as local dictators pull a few "****** Hussiens" and try to conquer their neighbors.
* Mexico. Jesus, I don't even want to think of what would happen in Mexico if the US pulled out of world affairs.
* North Korea would feel emboldened.
* South Korea would [bleep] its pants and militarize.
* Whether the Koreas wipe each other out depends on whether North Korea can make up for the loss of US subsidies and whether China can keep North Korea in check.
* US arms manufacturers would have record world wide sales, which would increase the US economy's dependence on a military industrial complex to levels beyond that of the Cold War.
* The UN would probably become much less useful as the US abstains from most votes and stops being the "world police."
* Iran would make a play at being a regional power.
* Iran's neighbors would build up and crash start nuclear weapons programs.
* Israel would probably nuke Iran.
* Canada would still be Canada.
* Non-arab African nations might fall apart into smaller regional powers if "first world" investment dries up. African dictators would start a few wars.
* South Africa would seek to stabilize southern Africa.
* The EU, Russia, China, and South Africa would all make a play for Africa's mineral wealth.
* Oil. The price would go through the roof due to all the political instability and the global economy would crash. Wars over oil would be fought. The US probably won't be able to stay isolated (say hello to Venezuela and Mexico as American territories!)
* Forgot about the huge unexploited mineral wealth hidden in frozen tundra of the former Soviet Union. Russia would definitely make a play to control most of Siberia and China would also try to grab a piece of it, or play Russia off against its former soviet republics.
Edit: forgot about Iran. And oil.
Edit: forgot about Africa.
Edit: digitalwanderer reminded me about Sibera's untapped wealth.
This seems like a pretty accurate list of primary effects. |
Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 20:33:00 - [ 82]
The reason why the US speaks softly to China is because the lobbyists enjoy the large quantities of cheap labor and small tariffs we have with China. Get rid of that, and China serves no purpose to the US.
Also, just because some of our equipment is old, does not mean it is not advanced or still top of the line. The M16 was invented over fifty years ago, and is still considered one of, if not the, best assault rifle ever produced. Light-weight, accurate, and with a high rate-of-fire, it's one of the best weapons to date.
The F-15's are certainly getting a bit old, but if the US Air Force saw a dire need for something more recent and powerful, it would not take very long to turn the massive military industrial complex that is America from "sleeping" to "snarling and filled with rage." Remember WWII? In a year we went from being relatively powerful to holy mother of god where did all those godforsaken ships and tanks come from.
Needless to say, if America ever came under fire, from a legitimately powerful country, the country could easily vault itself into even more absurd power within a few years. Yes, we owe a lot of money. Most of whats not owed to the public is owed to China, so if we were to war with them, I think we can both agree it would be moot.
And there are more than likely enough patriots to buy war bonds in this country. The massive industrial push would also bring jobs to the unemployed, and give them money with which to pay taxes (that could be subtly increased "to fund the war.")
Needless to say, although China is more modern than it was, and has considerably more people, America would do rather well. Maybe not win, but the brunt of it would certainly not be on our shores.
Also, Railguns in 2012!!! |
Elirel
Alpha.Tech |
Posted - 2010.05.23 21:19:00 - [ 83]
Originally by: Zions Child
Remember WWII?
Yeah, we do remember you sitting in safety, making $ of starving, dying Europe and jumping into bandwagon at the very end to get the spoils of victory (just like you did in WW1). Also, this thread is now about WWII. |
digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 21:56:00 - [ 84]
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 23/05/2010 21:59:23 Originally by: Zions Child
The reason why the US speaks softly to China is because the lobbyists enjoy the large quantities of cheap labor and small tariffs we have with China. Get rid of that, and China serves no purpose to the US.
Small tariffs?....Did you know that China keeps it's currency exchange rate always low relative to the US dollar,so that it always remains competitive relative to the US based companies,or that china already has about 2 trillion dollars worth of US savings bonds earning them 5% interest right now? China is an economic monster in it's own right,and the reason it got so big,so fast,is because of consumers the world over never asking obvious questions like: 1:How come what i'm buying right now is so cheap,be it clothing,or a large screen TV,DVD player,home theater system,computer or computer related parts....The list goes on and on really,but the bottom line is that as consumers,we don't care anymore where it's built,or if the workers there are being treated fairly and payed according to their skills,as long as it's cheap. There was a time back in the 1960's and even the 1970's,where buying products from countries other than where you lived was unheard of,as there was a certain pride in knowing you were buying products designed and manufactured in the US(same applies to europe though),which meant that jobs were being maintained within the national economy,and the economy remained much stronger,but with that basic mentality having changed enourmously over the last few decades,all those jobs moved to china in case you hadn't noticed,and the USA and europe became much weaker overall in terms if economic power. Quote:
Also, just because some of our equipment is old, does not mean it is not advanced or still top of the line. The M16 was invented over fifty years ago, and is still considered one of, if not the, best assault rifle ever produced. Light-weight, accurate, and with a high rate-of-fire, it's one of the best weapons to date.
Very true,but guns and rifles aren't exactly dependent on the latest technology either Quote:
The F-15's are certainly getting a bit old, but if the US Air Force saw a dire need for something more recent and powerful, it would not take very long to turn the massive military industrial complex that is America from "sleeping" to "snarling and filled with rage." Remember WWII? In a year we went from being relatively powerful to holy mother of god where did all those godforsaken ships and tanks come from.
They did,it was called the F22,and only a fraction will end up being built,compared to numbers that were part of the contract initially,some 20 years ago,and i'm no even going to the little issue that originally,the F22 was supposed to enter service 7 years before it actually did,as the first F22 squadron only formed in 2006. Also,don't mistake WW2 issues with today's,as back then,everything had relatively low technology requirements,so they were pretty fast to develop,and mass produce....Case in point,the sherman tank was a joke compared to the german tiger tanks,as shermans couldn't punch thru the armour,so you needed 3 shermans for every tiger tank for the fight to be even remotely even,and thousands of those were built because of that reason. Same goes for planes and especially ships and submarines of course.....They're massively expensive these days due to thee technology they pack,and it takes time to get the personel properly trained to use that equipement,so some of the rules have changed alot in the last 60~70 years. |
Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 22:29:00 - [ 85]
Originally by: digitalwanderer
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 23/05/2010 18:12:27
Wiki's link on the eurofighter typhoon,of which there are about 1000 planes in service across 4 air forces,and even saudi arbia is buying 80 of them too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
Quote:
The Eurofighter consortium claims their fighter has a larger sustained subsonic turn rate, sustained supersonic turn rate, and faster acceleration at Mach 0.9 at 20,000 feet (6,100 m) than the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet, Dassault Mirage 2000, Dassault Rafale, the Sukhoi Su-27, and the Mikoyan MiG-29.[121][122][123]
In 2005, a trainer Eurofighter T1 was reported to have had a chance encounter the previous year with two U.S. Air Force F-15Es over the Lake District in the north of England. The encounter became a mock dogfight with the Eurofighter allegedly emerging victorious.[124][125][verification needed]
In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, the Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests.[126][127][verification needed] Singapore still went on to buy the F-15 due to uncertainty over Typhoon tranche 2 delivery dates.
During the exercise "Typhoon Meet" held in 2008, Eurofighters flew against F/A-18 Hornets, Mirage F1s, Harriers and F-16s in a mock combat exercise. It is claimed that the Eurofighters won all engagements (even outnumbered 8 vs 27) without suffering losses.[128][129]
The aviation magazine "Flug Revue" reports that in 2008 German Typhoon were pitted against French Rafales. The results are said to be "extremely gratifying", the main difference being the "much greater thrust of the EJ200 engine".[130]
In July 2009, Former Chief of Air Staff for the Royal Air Force Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy said that "The Eurofighter Typhoon is an excellent aircraft. It will be the backbone of the Royal Air Force along with the JSF".[131]
Eurofighter is making quite a reputation for itself,as the only plane is hasn't met yet would be the F22 raptor,which constitutes a miniscule part of the USA's total air force power....All the rest of the US planes were beaten by the eurofighters,and in some encounters,with the hostiles having higher numbers of planes.
So i think that europe could defend itself quite nicely thanks.
Heh, yeah...did you notice that it went up against two F-15E models and not C models? F-15Es are a completely different airframe with completely different capabilities. F-15E airframes are much heavier and are mainly used for ground attack, not air-to-air. They have an air-to-air capability mainly for self-defense, not to mention the twin Pratt & Wimpy (Pratt & Whitney) engines on the E model are extremely underpowered in comparison to the GE engines on the C model. The radar is completely different as well. The APG-63 and all its upgrades is a monster to say the least, and I won't even begin to get into the FDL (Fighter Data Link) upgrades combined with the upgraded AMRAAM and AIM-9X. That said, I LOVE the Eurofighter Typhoon. However, comparing the EF to the F-22 is like apples and oranges, just like Jumper said. The F-22 is an air-to-air only fighter and was built solely for air dominance; the EF is a dual-role aircraft. As amazing as it is, I'm still not sure it would win in a 4v4 against the F-15C. I'm not saying the Eagle flight would come out unscathed, but a 4-ship of Eagles is the last thing anyone wants to see if they're not your friends. Both sides would be in for a world of hurt. Aircraft are not like automobiles; knowledge of tactics and employment is paramount. Wikipedia is the last source you should be linking. In fact, some of the stuff is just plain WRONG. Until you have the proper clearance, you'll never know what it can do. Just take my word for it. |
Ella C'Tronix |
Posted - 2010.05.23 22:31:00 - [ 86]
The facts so far:
-Nobody knows what's really going on, they only know what the news / people of low clearance tells them
-Everyone thinks they have a valid opinion based on "facts" they heard 8th hand.
A little less time policing the world and a little more dealing with collapsing country at home would go a long way though. |
Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 22:39:00 - [ 87]
Just to add another thing...it also went up against F/A-18s, F-16s, and Harriers. All three of them are dual-role attack aircraft. The F-16, though lethal, is a far cry from an F-15. It's not that it's not in the same ball park, it's not even in the same sport. I'll give you an idea:
The EF in this case would be an Abaddon and the Hornets, Vipers (not Fighting Falcon...don't ever call an F-16 a Fighting Falcon), and Harriers would all be a Thorax. They put a bunch of 4th generation dual role fighter/attack aircraft against a state-of-the-art 5th generation fighter. Hell, a HARRIER? LOL. They probably would've gotten worse results if the EF went up against a drone.
This is akin to bragging about punching a 5-year-old. Still, that EF is an awesome jet. |
baltec1 |
Posted - 2010.05.23 22:39:00 - [ 88]
Edited by: baltec1 on 23/05/2010 22:55:42 Originally by: Astenion
Heh, yeah...did you notice that it went up against two F-15E models and not C models? F-15Es are a completely different airframe with completely different capabilities. F-15E airframes are much heavier and are mainly used for ground attack, not air-to-air. They have an air-to-air capability mainly for self-defense, not to mention the twin Pratt & Wimpy (Pratt & Whitney) engines on the E model are extremely underpowered in comparison to the GE engines on the C model. The radar is completely different as well. The APG-63 and all its upgrades is a monster to say the least, and I won't even begin to get into the FDL (Fighter Data Link) upgrades combined with the upgraded AMRAAM and AIM-9X.
That said, I LOVE the Eurofighter Typhoon. However, comparing the EF to the F-22 is like apples and oranges, just like Jumper said. The F-22 is an air-to-air only fighter and was built solely for air dominance; the EF is a dual-role aircraft. As amazing as it is, I'm still not sure it would win in a 4v4 against the F-15C. I'm not saying the Eagle flight would come out unscathed, but a 4-ship of Eagles is the last thing anyone wants to see if they're not your friends. Both sides would be in for a world of hurt.
Aircraft are not like automobiles; knowledge of tactics and employment is paramount. Wikipedia is the last source you should be linking. In fact, some of the stuff is just plain WRONG. Until you have the proper clearance, you'll never know what it can do. Just take my word for it.
We had a typhoon show up at my local air show and to be honest, I dont think there is a single jet out there that can match its manoverability. It certanly made the F15s look sluggish. But the Vulcan bomber stole the show. Something designed to inflict hideous death on incredible numbers of people in one go... SHOULD SOUND LIKE THAT. It was like it was taring down a god to throw upon the enemy! |
Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 23:00:00 - [ 89]
Edited by: Astenion on 23/05/2010 23:01:18 Originally by: Elirel
Originally by: Zions Child
Remember WWII?
Yeah, we do remember you sitting in safety, making $ of starving, dying Europe and jumping into bandwagon at the very end to get the spoils of victory (just like you did in WW1).
Also, this thread is now about WWII.
Yeah we were sitting in complete safety, with a gigantic portion of our entire Navy burning and sinking in Hawaii. There was no "jumping on the bandwagon at the end", unless that bandwagon means decimating the Axis forces on two opposite sides of Earth because either you couldn't or didn't have the stomach for it. Australia wanted to surrender and just negotiate after the war with Japan to get it back, while Germany was about to swallow Britain whole, and France...well, we all know how that turned out. But I'm not one of these idiot Americans who believe we did it out of the goodness of our hearts. We fell victim to an unprovoked attack, and we wanted blood. We could've just blockaded Japan for the duration of the war and starved them to death, but we chose the overt course of action. Also, England was getting pulverized by ******'s forces, and as much as I'd like to be all chummy and friendly, we didn't help them because we loved them so much. They were the last bastion of democracy in Europe at the time and we couldn't afford to let them fall, lest the fascists and communists would have a field day after that. So no, I'm not going to sit here and blow smoke up your ass and tell you we saved you because we're a bunch of saints. If we're gonna send millions of our young men to their deaths, then goddammit we want something in return. We knew about the Jews before and did nothing. The only reason we got into the war was because we were attacked and had to play mommy and daddy and slap the kids around and tell the little ****s to knock it off. |
Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 23:06:00 - [ 90]
WTF I can't say H i t l e r? What the hell is wrong with you, CCP? What is this, the G e s t a p o? |
|
All Channels
Out of Pod Experience
